As someone interested in politics, I have briefly read about the Buddhist stance on politics but not a huge amount.

Is strict Buddhism and strong political opinions compatible? I mean, is Buddhism essentially exclusive to a certain political beliefs or ideal, or is it generally quite open?

As someone who isn't hugely knowledgeable about general Buddhism yet, I personally can't really see how Buddhism and conservatism would ever be compatible, but maybe I'm wrong (not that it ultimately matters, I'm quite liberal actually lol).

Yes, as long as they're not of an intrinsically evil sort. For example, radical ideologies that aim at violent revolution would be rather at odds with Buddhist ahimsa.

I mean, is Buddhism essentially exclusive to a certain political beliefs or ideal, or is it generally quite open?

In principle it's fairly open. In practice the general tendency in Asia is for institutional Buddhism to go hand in hand with political and social conservatism, while among western Buddhists it's quite the opposite – most seem to be left of centre in their views and some are on the far left.

As someone who isn't hugely knowledgeable about general Buddhism yet, I personally can't really see how Buddhism and conservatism would ever be compatible,

I find them to be perfectly compatible. To the extent that the Buddha has anything at all to say on social and political matters, the positions he takes are for the most part traditionalist conservative ones. The most political Buddhist text of all —the Mahasupina Jataka— reads almost like a manifesto of classical western conservatism (though not of what goes by the name of 'conservatism' in contemporary Britain or America).

pmwhewitt wrote:As someone interested in politics, I have briefly read about the Buddhist stance on politics but not a huge amount.

Is strict Buddhism and strong political opinions compatible? I mean, is Buddhism essentially exclusive to a certain political beliefs or ideal, or is it generally quite open?

As someone who isn't hugely knowledgeable about general Buddhism yet, I personally can't really see how Buddhism and conservatism would ever be compatible, but maybe I'm wrong (not that it ultimately matters, I'm quite liberal actually lol).

Thanks.

I think Buddhism leaves politics quite open.

Buddhism is about personal liberation, but the Buddha's teachings also have broader implications, which could be emphasized to support different politics points-of-view. Some Buddhists, for instance, on the grounds of religion, might support a conservative and paternalistic regulation of social freedom -- banning pornography, prostitution, drugs, opposing homosexuality (possibly due to a misunderstanding about the meaning of pandaka), passing laws to support religion financially and have it taught in schools, to pass laws to discourage divorce, tough laws on pedophilia, etc.. Animals are also protected, because they are regarded as sentient beings too. All of this is a common mindset among Asian Buddhists, to my knowledge. Capital punishment, abortion, and euthanasia are also often opposed because the traditional view is that they involve the destruction of sentient life.

Now, despite this prevailing opinion of social conservatism in places like Thailand, you still have many western Buddhists who see things very differently than this; they are social progressives. And I think it would be silly to say that either one side or the other is politics based on "true" Buddhism. Even within both groups, it should also be mentioned that there are exceptions: there are socially conservative western Buddhists and socially liberal Asian Buddhists.

When it comes to economics, the door is even more broad. Although the Buddha obviously denounced greed, there are no Buddhist teachings on economics (that is, the Buddha himself said nothing on macroeconomics or economic policy) and what is called "Buddhist economics" is largely just Neo-Marxism with a more pleasant label. Because the Buddha did not teach economics, people must build such opinions on outside sources.

Dhammanando wrote:I find them to be perfectly compatible. To the extent that the Buddha has anything at all to say on social and political matters, the positions he takes are for the most part traditionalist conservative ones. The most political Buddhist text of all —the Mahasupina Jataka— reads almost like a manifesto of classical western conservatism (though not of what goes by the name of 'conservatism' in contemporary Britain or America).

Could you gives some specific examples?

For instance, what statements by the Buddha might be used to support censorship of pornography or prohibition of drugs?

I understand that the Buddha describes behaviors as immoral, harmful, and even says that such behaviors can bring a society or nation to ruin. But what does he say about a government (back then, a king) making proclamations forbidding such behaviors? Does the Buddha ever claim that such a proclamation is enforceable, in a way that brings benefit?

The Buddha came from a warrior caste and was naturally brought into association with kings, princes and ministers. Despite His origin and association, He never resorted to the influence of political power to introduce His teaching, nor allowed His Teaching to be misused for gaining political power. But today, many politicians try to drag the Buddha's name into politics by introducing Him as a communist, capitalist, or even an imperialist. They have forgotten that the new political philosophy as we know it really developed in the West long after the Buddha's time. Those who try to make use of the good name of the Buddha for their own personal advantage must remember that the Buddha was the Supremely Enlightened One who had gone beyond all worldly concerns. There is an inherent problem of trying to intermingle religion with politics. The basis of religion is morality, purity and faith, while that for politics is power. In the course of history, religion has often been used to give legitimacy to those in power and their exercise of that power. Religion was used to justify wars and conquests, persecutions, atrocities, rebellions, destruction of works of art and culture. When religion is used to pander to political whims, it has to forego its high moral ideals and become debased by worldly political demands.

The thrust of the Buddha Dhamma is not directed to the creation of new political institutions and establishing political arrangements. Basically, it seeks to approach the problems of society by reforming the individuals constituting that society and by suggesting some general principles through which the society can be guided towards greater humanism, improved welfare of its members, and more equitable sharing of resources. There is a limit to the extent to which a political system can safeguard the happiness and prosperity of its people. No political system, no matter how ideal it may appear to be, can bring about peace and happiness as long as the people in the system are dominated by greed, hatred and delusion. In addition, no matter what political system is adopted, there are certain universal factors which the members of that society will have to experience: the effects of good and bad kamma, the lack of real satisfaction or everlasting happiness in the world characterized by dukkha (unsatisfactoriness), anicca (impermanence), and anatta (egolessness). To the Buddhist, nowhere in Samsara is there real freedom, not even in the heavens or the world of Brahama.

Although a good and just political system which guarantees basic human rights and contains checks and balances to the use of power is an important condition for a happy in society, people should not fritter away their time by endlessly searching for the ultimate political system where men can be completely free, because complete freedom cannot be found in any system but only in minds which are free. To be free, people will have to look within their own minds and work towards freeing themselves from the chains of ignorance and craving. Freedom in the truest sense is only possible when a person uses Dhamma to develop his character through good speech and action and to train his mind so as to expand his mental potential and achieve his ultimate aim of enlightenment. While recognizing the usefulness of separating religion from politics and the limitations of political systems in bringing about peace and happiness, there are several aspects of the Buddha's teaching which have close correspondence to the political arrangements of the present day. Firstly, the Buddha spoke about the equality of all human beings long before Abraham Lincoln, and that classes and castes are artificial barriers erected by society. The only classification of human beings, according to the Buddha, is based on the quality of their moral conduct. Secondly, the Buddha encouraged the spirit of social -co-operation and active participation in society. This spirit is actively promoted in the political process of modern societies. Thirdly, since no one was appointed as the Buddha's successor, the members of the Order were to be guided by the Dhamma and Vinaya, or in short, the Rule of Law. Until today very member of the Sangha is to abide by the Rule of Law which governs and guides their conduct. Fourthly, the Buddha encouraged the spirit of consultation and the democratic process. This is shown within the community of the Order in which all members have the right to decide on matters of general concern. When a serious question arose demanding attention, the issues were put before the monks and discussed in a manner similar to the democratic parliamentary system used today.

This self-governing procedure may come as a surprise to many to learn that in the assemblies of Buddhists in India 2,500 years and more ago are to be found the rudiments of the parliamentary practice of the present day. A special officer similar to 'Mr. Speaker' was appointed to preserve the dignity of the Parliamentary Chief Whip, was also appointed to see if the quorum was secured. Matters were put forward in the form of a motion which was open to discussion. In some cases it was done once, in others three times, thus anticipating the practice of Parliament in requiring that a bill be read a third time before it becomes law. If the discussion showed a difference of opinion, it was to be settled by the vote of the majority through balloting. The Buddhist approach to political power is the moralization and the responsible use of public power. The Buddha preached non-violence and peace as a universal message. He did not approve of violence or the destruction of life, and declared that there is no such thing as a 'just' war. He taught: 'The victor breeds hatred, the defeated lives in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and peaceful.' Not only did the Buddha teach non-violence and peace, He was perhaps the first and only religious teacher who went to the battlefield personally to prevent the outbreak of a war. He diffused tension between the Sakyas and the Koliyas who were about to wage war over the waters of Rohini. He also dissuaded King Ajatasattu from attacking the Kingdom of the Vajjis.

The Buddha discussed the importance and the prerequisites of a good government. He showed how the country could become corrupt, degenerate and unhappy when the head of the government becomes corrupt and unjust. He spoke against corruption and how a government should act based on humanitarian principles. The Buddha once said, 'When the ruler of a country is just and good, the ministers become just and good; when the ministers are just and good, the higher officials become just and good; when the higher officials are just and good, the rank and file become just and good; when the rank and file become just and good, the people become just and good.'(Anguttara Nikaya) In the Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta, the Buddha said that immorality and crime, such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred, cruelty, could arise from poverty. Kings and governments may try to suppress crime through punishment, but it is futile to eradicate crimes through force. In the Kutadanta Sutta, the Buddha suggested economic development instead of force to reduce crime. The government should use the country's resources to improve the economic conditions of the country. It could embark on agricultural and rural development, provide financial support to entrepreneurs and business, provide adequate wages for workers to maintain a decent life with human dignity.

In the Jataka, the Buddha had given to rules for Good Government, known as 'Dasa Raja Dharma'. These ten rules can be applied even today by any government which wishes to rule the country peacefully. The rules are as follows:

1) be liberal and avoid selfishness, 2) maintain a high moral character, 3) be prepared to sacrifice one's own pleasure for the well-being of the subjects, 4) be honest and maintain absolute integrity, 5) be kind and gentle, 6) lead a simple life for the subjects to emulate, 7) be free from hatred of any kind, 8) exercise non-violence, 9) practise patience, and 10) respect public opinion to promote peace and harmony.

Regarding the behavior of rulers, He further advised:

A good ruler should act impartially and should not be biased and discriminate between one particular group of subjects against another. - A good ruler should not harbor any form of hatred against any of his subjects. - A good ruler should show no fear whatsoever in the enforcement of the law, if it is justifiable. - A good ruler must possess a clear understanding of the law to be enforced. It should not be enforced just because the ruler has the authority to enforce the law. It must be done in a reasonable manner and with common sense. -- (Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta)

In the Milinda Panha,it is stated: 'If a man, who is unfit, incompetent, immoral, improper, unable and unworthy of kingship, has enthroned himself a king or a ruler with great authority, he is subject to be tortured‚ to be subject to a variety of punishment by the people, because, being unfit and unworthy, he has placed himself unrighteously in the seat of sovereignty. The ruler, like others who violate and transgress moral codes and basic rules of all social laws of mankind, is equally subject to punishment; and moreover, to be censured is the ruler who conducts himself as a robber of the public.' In a Jataka story, it is mentioned that a ruler who punishes innocent people and does not punish the culprit is not suitable to rule a country.

The king always improves himself and carefully examines his own conduct in deeds, words and thoughts, trying to discover and listen to public opinion as to whether or not he had been guilty of any faults and mistakes in ruling the kingdom. If it is found that he rules unrighteously, the public will complain that they are ruined by the wicked ruler with unjust treatment, punishment, taxation, or other oppressions including corruption of any kind, and they will react against him in one way or another. On the contrary, if he rules righteously they will bless him: 'Long live His Majesty.' (Majjhima Nikaya) The Buddha'semphasis on the moral duty of a ruler to use public power to improve the welfare of the people had inspired Emperor Asoka in the Third Century B.C. to do likewise.

Emperor Asoka, a sparkling example of this principle, resolved to live according to and preach the Dhamma and to serve his subjects and all humanity. He declared his non-aggressive intentions to his neighbors, assuring them of his goodwill and sending envoys to distant kings bearing his message of peace and non-aggression. He promoted the energetic practice of the socio-moral virtues of honesty, truthfulness, compassion, benevolence, non-violence, considerate behavior towards all, non-extravagance, non-acquisitiveness, and non-injury to animals. He encouraged religious freedom and mutual respect for each other's creed. He went on periodic tours preaching the Dhamma to the rural people. He undertook works of public utility, such as founding of hospitals for men and animals, supplying of medicine, planting of roadside trees and groves, digging of wells, and construction of watering sheds and rest houses. He expressly forbade cruelty to animals. Sometimes the Buddha is said to be a social reformer. Among other things, He condemned the caste system, recognized the equality of people, spoke on the need to improve socio-economic conditions, recognized the importance of a more equitable distribution of wealth among the rich and the poor, raised the status of women, recommended the incorporation of humanism in government and administration, and taught that a society should not be run by greed but with consideration and compassion for the people.

Despite all these, His contribution to mankind is much greater because He took off at a point which no other social reformer before or ever since had done, that is, by going to the deepest roots of human ill which are found in the human mind. It is only in the human mind that true reform can be effected. Reforms imposed by force upon the external world have a very short life because they have no roots. But those reforms which spring as a result of the transformation of man's inner consciousness remain rooted. While their branches spread outwards, they draw their nourishment from an unfailing source -- the subconscious imperatives of the life-stream itself. So reforms come about when men's minds have prepared the way for them, and they live as long as men revitalize them out of their own love of truth, justice and their fellow men.

The doctrine preached by the Buddha is not one based on 'Political Philosophy'. Nor is it a doctrine that encourages men to worldly pleasures. It sets out a way to attain Nibbana. In other words, its ultimate aim is to put an end to craving (Tanha) that keeps them in bondage to this world. A stanza from the Dhammapada best summarizes this statement: 'The path that leads to worldly gain is one, and the path that leads to Nibbana(by leading a religious life)is another.' However, this does not mean that Buddhists cannot or should not get involved in the political process, which is a social reality. The lives of the members of a society are shaped by laws and regulations, economic arrangements allowed within a country, institutional arrangements, which are influenced by the political arrangements of that society. Nevertheless, if a Buddhist wishes to be involved in politics, he should not misuse religion to gain political powers, nor is it advisable for those who have renounced the worldly life to lead a pure, religious life to be actively involved in politics.

pmwhewitt wrote:Is strict Buddhism and strong political opinions compatible? I mean, is Buddhism essentially exclusive to a certain political beliefs or ideal, or is it generally quite open?

I think the important distinction to make is between the institution and the individuals. Laypeople can do whatever they want and if they participate politically they'll have to make decisions about what's best. The institutions should stay as far as possible away from the arenas of power. It always ends badly for both the state and the sangha, and it always will.

As someone who isn't hugely knowledgeable about general Buddhism yet, I personally can't really see how Buddhism and conservatism would ever be compatible, but maybe I'm wrong (not that it ultimately matters, I'm quite liberal actually lol).

I agree. Buddhism and conservatism is a confusing mix at best, and modern conservative politics consists of all sorts of brutality, thuggery and delusion that has no natural relationship with the dhamma.

i had a talk similar to this once with a friend and i sugested to him that maybe all the people we on the left "hate" really arent evil, maybe they really think theyre doing the right thing... i have a hard time seeing bush as evil, a buffoon yes, but evil probably not. chainey and rush on the other hand...

สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

jcsuperstar wrote:i had a talk similar to this once with a friend and i sugested to him that maybe all the people we on the left "hate" really arent evil, maybe they really think theyre doing the right thing... i have a hard time seeing bush as evil, a buffoon yes, but evil probably not. chainey and rush on the other hand...

Well that's more a question of whether there are "good" people and "evil" people. I don't think so. I think everyone is fundamentally wonderful. However, it is obvious that some wonderful people choose to do some awful awful things.

Due to ideology, this topic quickly slips into clinging to views and selfing, "I am better than", "I am the same as", "I am worse than" with the great preponderance of the former. My experiences with political dialogue have been that very people are willing to hear all the arguments then make an informed decision. Usually they grasp and cling to their political party lines because they can't stand those on the other side of the aisle. And as such they seem to see themselves as superior thinkers therefore clinging to a view of self.

Ron

"To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas" - Dhammapada 183

The Jataka describes a visit King Pasenadi pays to the Buddha, seeking an interpretation of sixteen evil dreams that have been troubling him. The Buddha treats each dream as a premonition of some future evil event that will come to pass during a time of evil rulers. From the things identified by the Buddha as social evils one may draw inferences as to what sort of social arrangement he would view as optimal.

The Jataka describes a visit King Pasenadi pays to the Buddha, seeking an interpretation of sixteen evil dreams that have been troubling him. The Buddha treats each dream as a premonition of some future evil event that will come to pass during a time of evil rulers. From the things identified by the Buddha as social evils one may draw inferences as to what sort of social arrangement he would view as optimal.

Thanks, you just saved me having to go look for this.

Worth bearing in mind its status as a Jataka, but an interesting and worthwhile read nonetheless.

Would you say that being elected as a member of Parliament and voting on whether to increase the funding for roads and bridges, or to increase funding for hospitals is on the same level as the action of Temiya-kumaros' father Kasiraja in sentencing four robbers? He sentenced the first to a thousand strokes from whips barbed with thorns, another to be imprisoned in chains, a third to be smitten with a spear, the fourth to be impaled?

metta and respect,Chris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Some scholars interpret this Jataka as presenting the Buddhist view of personal responsibility for all our actions (kamma), even though we may feel justified -- due to our social role -- in punishing criminals and so on, still we have to bear the ethical consequences of that. This would naturally lead one out of the sphere of politics, although involvement in areas which have no negative impact on others should be all right.

See also this text discussing Buddhist political philosophy based on Jatakas and later apocryphal Jataka-tales:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. ...

So what if we state the converse? As in:

The non-conservative believes that no enduring moral order exists. There is no order made for man, and man is not made for any order. Human nature is inconstant, and moral truths are impermanent. ...

Which seems like an unworkable premise in politics in any context.

These "principals" read more like a blend of social platitudes -- and fictional generalizations like this:

Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away.

Like, for example, the deregulation that brought us the current global recession? I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that financial and industry deregulation was brought to us by "liberals and radicals" as the terms ordinarily are understood. (Maybe blame it on "radical conservatives"?) (Although in the U.S. admittedly a lot of it occurred under Bill Clinton's watch.)

These 10 conservative principles remind me of the politicians whose planks include things like opposition to child abuse. Who's not going to be against child abuse? It's a reverse strawman phenomenon, wherein the "conservative" defines the parameters of social discourse in such a way that a statement of the converse will sound unreasonable.

I guess that makes me a liberal? Or maybe there's a middle way ...

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.